On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:35:50 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[Snips for brevity]
>> I agree with you Greg.
>> I don't think privatizing would help either.
>>
>> *if*, as it's often been said, social services drive is monetary, then
>> wouldn't that drive be even stronger for a private company that
>> completely depends on funds generated by state contracts?
>
>It depends on their legal LIABILITY, as I mentioned.
>Ken says they are even LESS accountable if it's private.
>Can you explain that better, Ken?
>
Gee, if they're wrong, lawsuits are going to happen. We live in a
fairly litigious society.
So much for a lack of accountability, huh?
>>
>> There are already complaints that social services takes children for
the funding.
>
>It's more than complaints, Betty!
>
>INSIDERS have re****ted it!
Where? When?
>Law Suits have revealed it!
Where? When?
>State Legislatures have designed systems around that goal.
>When Iowa's governor appointed Kevin W. Concannon as our
>DHS director, MORE FUNDING was STATED AS THE REASON!
Cite?
It's certainly possible the reason he was hired wasn't because the
previous director left and Concannon was the best qualified applicant.
However, I'm not willing to take your word for it.
>
>> This may be true on an upper level, but at the lower levels, as with
caseworkers, that can't be any kind of incentive.
>
>It's like a cult or religious mindset Betty!
>Most of their training is INDOCTRINATION
>not actual training.
How would you know? Have you been through the training?
>
>Their UNION HALL resounds with their group agenda.
How would you know? Do you attend the union meetings?
>
>> Everything we know about DFS contradicts this.
>> Workers at the county level are over worked, their offices are
>> understaffed, and they do not receive any incentives in relation to
>> how many children are in the system at any given time.
>> I cannot attest to the truth of incentive in regard to county
>> supervisors, district managers, etc. I have no idea if they are paid
>> by salary, have bonuses, etc.
>> I am only certain that workers do not have any reason for their
>> actions that is monetarily driven.
>
>And you are wrong.
>They are UNION MEMBERS.
>What part of that don't you understand?
I don't understand how you know. Unless you are one of them, how
could you possibly know all that you claim to know?
>
>
>> Just a little side note on this...workers do not, for the most part,
>> make the decisions in their cases. Decisions are left to supervisors
>> and district managers. (at least, in my state, anyway.)
>>
>> Now, if foster care is privatized, then the whole income of the
>> company becomes an incentive.
>
>Private or government, funding is urged by supervisors!
Your reply makes NO sense.
[...]
>>
>> The biggest problem with DFS today is that the agency is not held
>> accountable for their actions to the public. Only in the most severe
>> cases, and when a child dies, does the public know about the actions
>> of DFS and have an op****tunity for input. I think a review committee
>> could put an end to the secretive nature of DFS. I know that the
>> agency says
>> 'confidentiality for minors', but the truth of the matter is that
>> confidentiality can be achieved while still notifying the public of
>> the workings of DFS.
>>
>> The second largest problem that faces DFS is that adherence to the law
is almost unheard of.
>
>Remember your recent comments that I don't need a trial.
Again, if you've not been charged with a crime, you don't get a
trial.
Why do you want to be tried for a crime the prosecution isn't
alleging you've committed? Is your mind so far gone that you think
you actually should be tried without being charged?
How very UN-American of you.
>
>> One of the best examples I can think of to
>> prove this point is that when a child is removed from the care of
>> their parents, DFS does NOT seek out 'fit and willing kin', as the law
mandates.
>
>That is only ONE of dozens of ONGOING VIOLATIONS.
Which is likely the reason Betty wrote, "One of the best examples
I can think of..."
>They maintain a corrupt cultish culture of corruption.
Could you write that in a coherent way, oh erudite one?
>They violate DOZENS of regulations constantly.
>The checks and balances are broken, to their advantage.
>They use the demagoguery that anything that troubles
>them works to the advantage of child abusers.
>
>> They wait for kin to come forward, however, that's not
>> always something that happens in a timely fa****on because kin often
>> does not know about the removal of a child.
>
>Betty, Yes, they act like ***** on this one point,
>but are you trying to pretend that is the only
>rule they break on an regular and ongoing basis?
You just can't be honest for anything.
A no point does Betty even imply it's the only one.
>
>> I wonder, sometimes, at the way the laws were thought out when set
>> into motion as well. For example, the father's registry in Missouri
>> is a huge joke. Technicalities. The law was created to prevent
>> children from langui****ng in foster care when no father could be
>> found. Ok, that's a good thing, right? What we don't generally know
>> about the law is this: If a man is named father of a child in DFS
>> custody, his name is placed on the registry. If he does not come
>> forward prior to adoption, then his parental rights are terminated and
>> the child is adopted.
>>
>> That's all fine, but there's a little twist in the saga that is hard
>> for me to believe, but is true....this is a termination by force.
>> According to our state laws, any parent who has their parental rights
>> terminated by force is forever there after considered unfit to parent
>> children.
>>
>> Think of what this could cause! If a woman claims five hundred men as
>> possible fathers (yes, I know this is an excessive number, but for the
>> sake of making a point, just go with it), each of them are placed on
>> the registry. If none of them come forward to prove they are not the
>> child's father, they ALL have their parental rights to the child
>> terminated...legally. After that termination, they are ALL considered
>> unfit to parent. Each of them, no matter how old or how young, would
>> then be in line for removal of any children that they currently have
>> in their homes, or future children because this technicality of the
>> registry makes them unfit parents.
>
>Why, Betty, It's so NICE that you've decided
>to forego your inherent loyalty to your
>gender and do all men such a huge favor
>by pointing out yet another way that men are
>getting ripped off on an ongoing basis.
>
Betty posts the truth as she sees it. That it upsets you is your
issue to address.
>
>> States should be, first and foremost, concerned with reevaluating
>> their laws and strictly enforcing them. They should then be
>> concerned about the operation of their agencies, and take a zero
>> tolerance stance on misconduct,
>
>Like caseworkers telling LIES to make cases?
>Why of course!
Has anyone claimed CW's can't and don't lie? Just because they had
no need in your case doesn't mean they can't or don't in others.
>
>But aren't you now telling the MAFIA
>to play by the rules?
So now you hold the delusion that the Mafia (TINM) is in charge
of CPS?
>
>Underestimating just how truly corrupt
>these agencies truly are?
How truly corrupt these agencies truly are?
Your grammar is so very erudite... NOT!
>
>You're a bit too experienced to play
>this "babe in the woods" ruse well.
It's a good thing that, outside of your (presumably drug) damaged
mind, she's not playing it, huh?
>
>You know very well they are corrupt as hell,
>UNIONIZED, and very ORGANIZED in their corruption.
>
Are the unionized? You claim it, which gives reason to presume
they are not.
>Your fake naivety is utter BS.
>
She's offered no naivety, fake or genuine.
>> not just in cases where death or
>> serious injury occurs to a child in their care.
>>
>> I don't think that privatizing foster care would benefit the children,
>> or the families of those children. I do not believe that privatizing
>> foster care would benefit states, except in one area...it MAY save the
>> states money.
>
>And?
>That is their PRIMARY motivation.
>This is no secret.
>
>I know you might pretend it's NEWS,
>but really it's not.
Where, in reality, has Betty proposed it's news?
>Family Rights
>groups of various kinds have had
>caseworkers INFORM on the actual
>inner workings of the Child Protection
>agencies.
>
>When you write off my invective as mere
>hyperbole, you deceive yourself.
That you see truth as deceit is to be expected.
>It's not just inflammatory blown
>up hysteria, it's based on reality
>as re****ted from INSIDE the damned agencies!
>
You delusions, hysterical as they are from time to time, aren't
reality.
>Remember that news story where a hispanic
>caseworker illegally returned the kids
>to their parents and sent them back
>to Mexico? He got charged, but many
>have said the case was GARBAGE from the
>beginning and he developed a concience.
Maybe the case was garbage. Maybe it wasn't. I don't know of a
way for any of us to know.
>
>Hell, Betty, even some NAZI's GENERALS
>turned to the Allied cause!
>
>> But that's about it. It would serve no other purpose.
>
>MONEY is their PRIMARY purpose.
>They have a UNION and a UNION HALL!
>Getting a clue?
I don't know about Betty, but I long ago got the clue you aren't
quite right in the head. I think it's a result of a checkered
pharmaceutical past, but know of no way to confirm or deny it.
>
>Ken, Please explain how privatizing this
>would make them even more immune legally.
>I believe you,
You are ever the fool.
>but I'd like to hear just HOW!
>
>I'll say it again, this CHANGE is
>probably because they got kicked in the ass
>and had a consent decree, or else US DHHS
>got on their ass and made them come up
>with something to supposedly improve their act.
Can you offer anything to sup****t such a though?
>
>
>19. Kent Wills Wed, Oct 15 2008 5:49 pm
>
>G > Perry, Since your IP resolves to NY NY, Please
>G > provide some proof that you are not some fiction
>G > created by the Child Protection INDUSTRY out to
>G > justify their own INDUSTRY by slamming blood kin.
>
>KW > Perry is very critical of CPS, simpleton,
>KW > unless Google somehow altered the post.
>KW > Did you read the post?
>
>20. Dragon's Girl Thurs, Oct 16 2008 1:18 am
>
>KW > Perry is very critical of CPS, simpleton,
>KW > unless Google somehow altered the post.
>KW > Did you read the post?
>
Did you need to post my comment twice? Does that gain you
anything?
Just wondering.
>BW > Kent.
>BW > Stop trying to point out the inconsistencies
>BW > with Greg's conspiracy theories.
>BW > You'll make his brain fry and then Lisa will
>BW > have to find another 'pair of shoes' buying daddy for Lisa Jr.
>
>Isn't that what gamblers say when they roll dice?
I doubt many, if any, gamblers discus you, Lisa and/or her
daughter.
BTW, you once boasted about how you bought her a pair of shoes
(are you regretting having motivated me read Kane's [All be Blessed by
Kane!] post, along with replies and such?). Betty will be in a better
position to comment, but I suspect that was the reference she was
making.
>
>In keeping with the original subject, I'd like
>to point out that states and the DHHS withhold
>the nature of almost all Federal CONSENT DECREES
>from the public. In addition, when states are
>kicked in the ass and TOLD STERNLY to get their
>**** together, they typically turn around and
>act like they are making the improvements out of
>the GOODNESS OF THEIR HEARTS!
Sounds like SOP for any agency.
>
>This crap ranks right up there with me along
>side the thing when the INS used to bust various
>companies in my area for m***** of ILLEGALS
>but keep the names of the rotten companies who
>did it PRIVATE.
>
>Where the hell did THAT right come from?
>
I'd guess one of your delusions, since there is no such right.
Feel free to cite where in the Constitution (federal or state)
such a right is recognized.
>WHO gave the damned aagencies the right to
>get kicked in the ass on a CONSENT DECREE
>and keep the fact a secret?
>
>WHY isn't that PUBLIC?
If they aren't public, you can't know about them.
How is it you know? No one outside of CPS could know.
>
>RON?
You want Ron's opinion about a reply you've made to Betty?
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser.
Message-ID: <1150922197.475392.294570@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
